CCMIN030369 - Laserfiche WebLink

It was moved by Councilman Reid and seconded by Councilman Beratlis that Resolution No. 69-48, naming the park, temporarily referred to as Orloff Park, Amador Valley Community Park, be adopted. The roll call vote was as follqws: AYES: Councilmen Beratlis, Reid, Spiliotopoulos and Mayor Gerton NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Rega Report of the Recreation and park Commission Re: Recommended increase in Park Dedication Fees Mr. Fales reviewed the report of the Recreation and Parks Commission,dated February 28, 1969, which recommended an increase for in-lieu fees in connection with the Park Dedication Ordinance. Mr. Fales explained that when the Park Dedication Ordinance was originally adopted, land was valued at approximately $8,000.00 per acre and in the last few years has increased considerably. Mr. Fales stated the Commission feels that the park fees which may be required in- stead of the dedication of land should be brought in line with current land values. Mr. Fales concurred with the Recreation and Parks Commission's recommen- dation to retain a land appraiser for the purpose of up-dating raw land values within the City and also later to amend our ordinance in accordance with the appraiser's recommendations. Councilman Spiliotopoulos stated that he was not in favor of hiring an apprai- ser as he thought this could be done by the City staff· It was moved by Councilman Reid and seconded by Councilman Beratlis that the City staff be authorized to retain an appraiser for the purpose of bringing land values up to 1969 levels in order to increase the Park Dedication Fees, be adopted. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmen Betaills, Reid and Mayor Getton NOES: Councilman Spiliotopoulos ABSENT: Councilman Rega Report of the Recreation and Park Commission Re: Request for Co-Sponsored Status b~ Pleasanton National Little League Mr. Fales reviewed the report of the Recreation and Parks Commission and their Resolution No. R-69-7, dated February 20, 1969, in which was recommended that the City Council grant the co-sponsored status to the Pleasanton National Little League and to transfer all funds budgeted for 1968-69 for youth baseball for use by the Pleasanton National Little League. Mr. Fales explained that the Pleasanton National Little League will be managing approximately 500 Pleasanton boys between the ages of 8 and 12, as the Playball League is no longer in existance. Mr. Fales recommended that the $1,350·00, which was originally budgeted for the Playball League, be transferred to the Pleasanton National Little League. It was moved by Councilman Reid and seconded by Councilman Beratlis that Resolution No. 69-49, accepting the Co-Sponsored Status to the Pleasanton National Little League and authorizing the transfer of $1,350.00 previously budgeted for the non-existant Playball League to the Pleasanton National Little League, be adopted· The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmen Beratlis, Reid, Spiliotopoulos and Mayor Gerton NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Rega REPORTS OF THE CITY MANAGER Report Re: Consideration of Establishin~ an assessment district under the 1913 Improvement Act financed with 1915 Act Bonds for Tract 2892 (Lon~view) Mr. Fales stated that Dr. Long, developer of Tract 2892, Longview, has re- quested that an assessment district be established to construct and finance the "in-tract" improvements of his proposed subdivision. Mr. Fales reviewed the report of the Assistant City Manager, dated February 28, 1969, which explained in detail the procedures required to establish an assessment district under both the 1911 and 1913 Improvement Act and the 1911 and 1915 Bond Acts. Mr. Fales called attention to the advantages of the 1915 Bond Act but stated that these advantages must be weighed against the risk of pledging a portion of the City's tax rate to insure the success of the developer, as well as the Council's policy that the cost of "in-tract" improvements should be borne solely by the developer. Mr. Robert Brunsell, from the firm of Sturgis, Den-Dulk, Douglass and Anderson, Bond Counselors, also explained the difference in the Improvement and Bond Acts and the 10¢ Override Tax.